[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

OminousSpudd wrote:A TASS article awhile back stated that the crew count may yet be reduced to two. If this was the case, out of curiosity which crew position would be most likely replaced?

Commander position.

57mm remote controled station Baikal







LINK

Viktor wrote:57mm remote controled station Baikal

With no intrusive parts in crew compartment, it can be installed on Kurganets or Armata platforms. This should give them a little more punch than the "simple" 30 mm. turret.

Pretty Sweet..

All Kuganets and boomerans Russia produce should come with no less than a 57mm gun..
for armored targets and a Kord 12.7mm machine gun for soft targets.. and few of them
lets say 10% of them armed with the same T-14 main armata 125 mm gun.

Later Russia can use a special cover for every single tank gun to fool the enemy, into not knowing whether it have a 57mm gun or a 125mm one.. That not only be a big deterrence
against Russia Enemies.. not know the real power of the armata armor until it fire and hit their
armored hardware.

So the sole view of any Kuganet or Boomeran in the battlefield will be scary for any NATO forces driving a heavy tank.. knowing that some of Russia light tanks carry heavy guns and can destroy their main battle tanks.

This way Russia can build a very large tank power force of 20,000 to 30,000 armata ,
and Russian enemies will not know which one of them will come armed with either serious 57mm gun or very dangerous 125mm new armata heavy gun..or the incomming 152mm one.  

so using all those 3 calibers.. and covering the cannons to hide their real size will be a very
useful tactic and deterrence. Since not only T-14 tanks will have the power to defeat any NATO
tank but also any Boomeran and Kuganets too. it all depends on the caliber of the main gun.

That 57 mm looks like SEX. Can't wait too see Terminator on Armata sporting this beast.

Whatever happened to the "outdated 57 mm ammunition" discussion?

Vann7 wrote:Pretty Sweet..

All Kurganets and Boomerangs Russia produces should come with no less than a 57mm gun..
for armored targets and a Kord 12.7mm machine gun for soft targets.. and few of them
lets say 10% of them armed with the same T-14 main armata 125 mm gun.

Later Russia can use a special cover for every single tank gun to fool the enemy, into not knowing whether it have a 57mm gun or a 125mm one.. That not only be a big deterrence
against Russia Enemies.. not know the real power of the armata armor until it fire and hit their
armored hardware.

So the sole view of any Kurganets or Boomerangs in the battlefield will be scary for any NATO forces driving a heavy tank.. knowing that some of Russia light tanks carry heavy guns and can destroy their main battle tanks.

This way Russia can build a very large tank power force of 20,000 to 30,000 armata ,
and Russian enemies will not know which one of them will come armed with either serious 57mm gun or very dangerous 125mm new armata heavy gun..or the incomming 152mm one.  

so using all those 3 calibers.. and covering the cannons to hide their real size will be a very
useful tactic and deterrence. Since not only T-14 tanks will have the power to defeat any NATO
tank but also any Boomerangs and Kurganets too. it all depends on the caliber of the main gun.

Stop smoking crack

You will not get 20k to 30k armatas.

And how will you make a 57mm look like a 125mm?

Boomerang and Kurganets will have Kornet to deal with tanks anyway.

The 57mm is made to better take advantage of the new BMS(Constellation 2M) couples with auto tracking FCS(Kalina I believe),

specifically to engage unmanned swarms, instead of relying on Pantsir.

The new 57mm is also geared towards the new western line of heavier IFVs and APCs, with ATGMs to deal with tanks or high-tier drones.

I doubt there will be a Boomerang armed greater than 57mm.

Kurganet will in my opinion, the lightest new vehicle in the Russian military to mount 125mm and 120mm.

You might see mortar carriers of Boomerang however.

Viktor wrote:57mm remote controled station Baikal

needs something like the faceted shell the T-14 sports. as it is it just looks unfinished to me.

archangelski wrote:
With no intrusive parts in crew compartment, it can be installed on Kurganets or Armata platforms. This should give them a little more punch than the "simple" 30 mm. turret.

safe to say this thing on the T-15 pretty much kills the potential for a BMPT armata.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Viktor wrote:57mm remote controled station Baikal

needs something like the faceted shell the T-14 sports. as it is it just looks unfinished to me.

Why would it need a faceted shell?

It will have Nadkidka.

Here is a video:

collegeboy16 wrote:safe to say this thing on the T-15 pretty much kills the potential for a BMPT armata.

How does it kill potential?

The role of the BMPT is already covered with the T-15 anway.

This thing already packs more firepower than a BMPT, simply slap on a few Kornets and RPOs to the side and you have one lean mean machine.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Viktor wrote:57mm remote controled station Baikal

needs something like the faceted shell the T-14 sports. as it is it just looks unfinished to me.

archangelski wrote:
With no intrusive parts in crew compartment, it can be installed on Kurganets or Armata platforms. This should give them a little more punch than the "simple" 30 mm. turret.

safe to say this thing on the T-15 pretty much kills the potential for a BMPT armata.

I don't get the big idea... 

1. Isn't the anti-armor 57 mm round extremely outdated? 
2. It doesn't add nearly enough weapons to take a BMPT-esque role... Only one main gun, no ATGM's or auto-grenade-launchers etc.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Why would it need a faceted shell?

It will have Nadkidka.

aesthetics, and because its a more effective way of minimizing radar signature- we have stealth aircraft as best proof of that.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
How does it kill potential?

The role of the BMPT is already covered with the T-15 anway.

This thing already packs more firepower than a BMPT, simply slap on a few Kornets and RPOs to the side and you have one lean mean machine.

because the main complaint about the T-15 in acting in the BMPT capacity is the lack of room-busting HE shell power from its relatively puny 30mm cannon; now they here a more significant 57 mm shell that can pack more explosive punch and surely have prox fuzes not to mention barrage fired.

collegeboy16 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Why would it need a faceted shell?

It will have Nadkidka.

aesthetics, and because its a more effective way of minimizing radar signature- we have stealth aircraft as best proof of that.

Lol, just look at the video, radar reflection is reduced to 1/6.

RCS reduction is overrated anyway, you should look into the reality of how low the signature of stealth aircraft really are.

collegeboy16 wrote:because the main complaint about the T-15 in acting in the BMPT capacity is the lack of room-busting HE shell power from its relatively puny 30mm cannon; now they here a more significant 57 mm shell that can pack more explosive punch and surely have prox fuzes not to mention barrage fired.

Well there you go, no more need for BMPT.

30mm isn't puny by any standard by the way.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Lol, just look at the video, radar reflection is reduced to 1/6.

put on the low sig. shell and you multiply that 1/6 by another fraction.

Mike E wrote:
1. Isn't the anti-armor 57 mm round extremely outdated? 

nothing stops them from making new rounds.

Mike E wrote:
2. It doesn't add nearly enough weapons to take a BMPT-esque role... Only one main gun, no ATGM's or auto-grenade-launchers etc.

simple, dont get into an ambush situation. take a drone or two to sniff out potential killzones.

Nothing stopping them but it means more money spent in the process...


That's not excuse to not have weapons. The BMPT was all about its armament, which is what made it special. Just a 57 is inadequate.

Some interesting information:


http://vpk.name/news/134583_istochnik_rasskazal_dzheins_o_vozmozhnostyah_kombinirovannoi_reaktivnoi_i_reshetchatoi_bronevoi_zashityi_armatyi.html

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Stop smoking crack

You will not get 20k to 30k armatas.

And how will you make a 57mm look like a 125mm?

Russia already have near 30,000 Armored vehicles between Infantry fighting vehicles
,BMP-1s, BMP-2s and BMP-3s . and T-72/62 and T-90s. That could be quickly put to service in
very small time. So is pretty much doable again with a much stronger economy Russia now have than since the 90s.

for wiki about light armored hardware..

Russia – 12,200 BMP-1s, BMP-2s and BMP-3s in 1995 and 12,700 in 2000–2009. 2,750 are currently in active service and 6,500 are in reserve.

and Russia have about 15,000 T-75,T-62s and near ~900 T-90A tanks.

Having 20,000 Armatas to replace their older BMps and others soviet hardware
will be a conservative number for them.. In Soviet Union best times ,Soviets build 20,000
T-72 tanks alone. and that was their top of the line armor.. not mentioning how many more
light armor they made.

Because Russia is so BIG , a continent on its own.. it face a major problem of a coordinated
Islamic militant invasion.. lets say from China western regions or from Caucasus.. and Russia also have many millions of muslins too inside Russia.. in Central regions like Kazan .and Russia
also needs lots of tanks in Kaliningrad that is very vulnerable to NATO forces. In other words
IF will be better to be prepared for a major full scale rebellion of the muslin population that is a time bomb ,that could explode at any time. All that is required for that to happen is that Russia
economy collapse and Putin no longer in power.. because retired or accident.. or foreign 5th column coup.. etc.

Russia needs to have enough modern light and heavy mobile armor for the worse possible scenario. You cannot use Nukes on your own territory.. Russian thousand of nukes ,did not convinced chechens from fighting Russia. They simply used civilians as human shields. The idea is that Russia could be prepared  to fight in a full scale conventional war either against militant or NATO on several fronts at the same time.. that is .. the most likely scenario that americans will try to Push ,whenever they seek a war in Russia.. Provoke many wars near Russian borders ,first , where Russia will be forced to interfere.. and provoke internal armed insurrection like chechenia were Army will also be needed.

A combination of Ukraine + War In Armenia vs Aerbaijan or Turkey. + Tajikistan vs ISIS.. + war in Chechenia + Georgia trying to retake abkhazia after Russia busy.. could push the limits of Russia to defend its nation territorial integrity. etc. and this scenario does not include unrest in Russia cities ,(because bad economy or muslins radicals) that also require tanks to contain any kind of armed insurrection to start..

All said Russia needs at least 5,000 armata to cover all far east .. 5,000 armata for their European western front (to cover from caucasus to baltic states.), about 5,000 for central Russia (to be used also to fight muslins militants who invade from China or from afganistan to allies territory like tajikistan) and another 5,000 for reserve.  Thats about 20,000 armatas.

With 20,000 armatas from T-14/T-15/Boomerans and Kuganets.. Russia will be in good position
to defend their own territory from any insurgent militant warfare that happens in their own territory but also in any ally country which Russia have a military presence.. like Armenia/Tajikistan and Abkhazia or transnistria.. Not ignoring Kaliningrad ,that is the most
vulnerable zone in Russia,for being split from main land and close to Lithuane and Poland..
where Russia needs no less than 2,000 armata tanks.

This means that Nuclear Deterrence is not enough ...Because Russian enemies could try
proxy wars (Like Syria and IRAQ, or Soviet Vs Afgan war where CIA armed Alqaeda) using Mercenaries they recruit to Fight inside Russia territory. this is the reason why Armata was developed to Strenghten Russia capabilities for the times when nuclear weapons cannot be used.. and be well equip to fight conventional wars too..

So Russia needs at least 20k Armatas to fully cover Russia territory with a decent modern
army. Having 30k.. will allow Russia to move from Defensive position to offensive one..
and invade for example a NATO country that attacks Russia.. while at the same time fighting
in several fronts..inside Russia..  

If For example Russia needs to fight a war against Turkey.. because they smuggle terrorist in Armenia ,and they later blockade Russia from the mediterranean sea.. Russia cannot rely that Nukes will be enough.. you cannot just use tactical nuclear weapons to open a siege ,most likely nuking them will encourage them to continue.. So in a full scale war with Turkey, where they start the war against Russia.. the most likely scenario that will happen.. is that Russia will at some point need to physically invade Turkey and kick their army from the territories near Greece ,that control the gate to the Black sea in retaliation for blocking their free transit to the mediterranean sea.

So its better for Russia to be military prepared for the most unthinkable scenarios ,but that
if History is any indication..could happen.. lets not forget US nuked Japan 2 times and what Americans did in 9/11 WTC.  As a matter of fact..

Americans , just like their European allies ,through History,many times...
ALWAYS took advantage of any Revolution or Civil war in Russia To invade the country.
This happened more than a dozen of times.. So Russia cannot rely in nuclear weapons to defend
its territory.. Nuclear weapons are only an All Destruction option. So Having a really strong Armata force from Light to heavy armor ..to defend all Russia territory..

Americans actually Invaded Russia during the bolshevick
revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia

The bastards did it ,with the pretext. of  "Defending something". (as they doing now in Syria). defending "someone".. or for "Humanitarian reasons" (as they did in IRAQ invasion or Lybia).  So Russia needs to be prepared for the unthinkable a NATO invasion by land of Russia..
and Russia needs to be ready to kick the asses of US and NATO using conventional forces first.. because they will need to fight NATO ,,as soon any Big civil war or Revolution happens in Russia and there is Internal fighting .with missing leadership in Russia ,and divided army.

The army will also will have to be trained to fight without orders ,and independent of the Government..If Russia invaded. if the Government is split.. so Russian enemies cannot take advantage of any temporary lack of leadership in Moscow.

^damn, everytime i read Vann7's block of text the laptop rises 6 inches .

Whatever happened to the "outdated 57 mm ammunition" discussion?

the original ammo for the S-60 was optimised for anti aircraft use, new ammo will likely be more multi purpose, but the vehicles carrying the 57mm gun will likely be IFVs.

I rather suspect the exception will be the Typhoon, which might use this 57mm gun as the primary weapon for the gun platform model (ie tank).

the Boomerang and Kurganets should both be easily able to accomodate the 125mm gun as both vehicles are in the 25 ton class... which makes them both 7 tons heavier than Sprut, which has a 125mm gun too.

The new 57mm is also geared towards the new western line of heavier IFVs and APCs, with ATGMs to deal with tanks or high-tier drones.

X2

Kurganet will in my opinion, the lightest new vehicle in the Russian military to mount 125mm and 120mm.

Boomerang will be in the same weight class, so I don't see why Boomerang units should go without 125mm guns and rifled 120mm gun/mortars.

How does it kill potential?

The role of the BMPT is already covered with the T-15 anway.

This thing already packs more firepower than a BMPT, simply slap on a few Kornets and RPOs to the side and you have one lean mean machine.

I think he means it would make the need for a Terminator a bit redundant... in the same sense that if you put the BMP-3M turret on an Armata chassis that it would make BMPT less useful.

the thing is that the BMPT is not the same as the IFV, with different fire power requirements.

the model with a 120mm rifled main gun, plus 23mm gatling and 40mm grenade launcher looked ideal to me...

1. Isn't the anti-armor 57 mm round extremely outdated?

For the role of IFV main weapon for use against enemy equivalent vehicles, a new APFSDS round would be a requirement, along with updated HE and guided rounds.

2. It doesn't add nearly enough weapons to take a BMPT-esque role... Only one main gun, no ATGM's or auto-grenade-launchers etc.

Would require more weapons for the BMPT role.

Well there you go, no more need for BMPT.

30mm isn't puny by any standard by the way.

Against current enemy IFVs it is marginal.

Nothing stopping them but it means more money spent in the process...

The only purpose for a high velocity 57mm gun is for the IFV main gun role... I would expect if they had that intention they will have developed new ammo for the role... costs can be shared with the Navy who also use 57mm shells.

That's not excuse to not have weapons. The BMPT was all about its armament, which is what made it special. Just a 57 is inadequate.

this turret represents the one for an IFV role... add some Kornets and it is pretty much OK for that job. For a BMPT role other weapons could be added.

the Russians wont build 20,000 Armatas, they simply don't need that many.

they will however build Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon and Armata in significant numbers, but the forces will be mobile so they can be moved quickly to where they will be needed.

Because Russia is so BIG , a continent on its own.. it face a major problem of a coordinated
Islamic militant invasion.. lets say from China western regions or from Caucasus.. and Russia also have many millions of muslins too

You need to chill out with your anti Islam stuff. I think there are some Muslims on this forum, And even on a tank thread you post against "Islamic militancy" first of all they are not "Islamic" but terrorists. You can't call name a terrorist group religious, That is first of all offensive.

VladimirSahin wrote:

Because Russia is so BIG , a continent on its own.. it face a major problem of a coordinated
Islamic militant invasion.. lets say from China western regions or from Caucasus.. and Russia also have many millions of muslins too

You need to chill out with your anti Islam stuff. I think there are some Muslims on this forum, And even on a tank thread you post against "Islamic militancy" first of all they are not "Islamic" but terrorists. You can't call name a terrorist group religious, That is first of all offensive.

True, especially that countries like Iraq under Saddam or Syria under Assad had nothing to do with terrorists and people there were much more Russians or Chinese alike then many parts of Brussels of Paris in burkas and living on state welfare.


Nonetheless Vann was correct - IGIL is real threat especially because of US logistical and intelligence support. I am not that optimistic about V column what makes Russia harder to fight unless you introduce Stalin´s principles. Take a look on wine import lobby or Naryshkhin justifying and supporting principle intl law over own !!!!! unfortunately no Armatas help here. Just new Dzerzhinsky

So the Russians might put a 120mm mortar on the new BMP-T? I concede that I don't know just how important muzzle velocity would be in urban environment engagements, but wouldn't the low velocity of the 2a80 gun hinder the new BMP-T against well-hidden, fast moving insurgents? I understand that the 2A36 152 mm howitzer can reach a muzzle velocity of 945mps... so couldn't a 2a80 120mm mortar gun be modernized to reach similar velocities?

These questions might be stupid, but I felt compelled to ask them.

ps: I know that a mortar and a howitzer are two different systems.

Cyrus the great wrote:So the Russians might put a 120mm mortar on the new BMP-T? I concede that I don't know just how important muzzle velocity would be in urban environment engagements, but wouldn't the low velocity of the 2a80 gun hinder the new BMP-T against well-hidden, fast moving insurgents? I understand that the 2A36 152 mm howitzer can reach a muzzle velocity of 945mps... so couldn't a 2a80 120mm mortar gun be modernized to reach similar velocities?

These questions might be stupid, but I felt compelled to ask them.  

ps: I know that a mortar and a howitzer are two different systems.

No one is putting a 120mm mortar on a BMP-T just yet.

However, 120mm will be put on the Kurganets to replace the Nona.

GarryB wrote:
Boomerang will be in the same weight class, so I don't see why Boomerang units should go without 125mm guns and rifled 120mm gun/mortars.

Boomerang weighs far less than the Kurganets for sure.

It is not a matter of weight, but suspension.

collegeboy16 wrote:^damn, everytime i read Vann7's block of text the laptop rises 6 inches .

I agree

So the Russians might put a 120mm mortar on the new BMP-T? I concede that I don't know just how important muzzle velocity would be in urban environment engagements, but wouldn't the low velocity of the 2a80 gun hinder the new BMP-T against well-hidden, fast moving insurgents? I understand that the 2A36 152 mm howitzer can reach a muzzle velocity of 945mps... so couldn't a 2a80 120mm mortar gun be modernized to reach similar velocities?

These questions might be stupid, but I felt compelled to ask them. Embarassed

ps: I know that a mortar and a howitzer are two different systems.

It is all very much conjecture... we have seen a model of an Armata based BMPT that had a rifled 120mm gun/mortar as its main weapon with side weapon positions for a 6 barrel 23mm gatling and what appeared to be a 40mm or 57mm low velocity grenade launcher on the other side.

Now first of all vehicles used previously in this role include SPAAG like Shilka and Tunguska and BTR-40 where their anti aircraft cannon are used against ground forces with considerable success.

Their problem of course is lack of protection from return fire so they defend tanks but are not as well protected as the vehicles they operate with.

the BMPT was reportedly a response to the situation in Chechnia where vehicles with high elevation guns like the BMPs that could engage enemy troops had light armour and were often taken out first leaving tanks unable to engage targets in basements or upper floors of buildings.

The BMPT is not artillery and it is not anti aircraft, but is high elevation and depression anti personel weapon designed to defend tanks for enemy infantry in built up areas and ambushes.

For this role HE power is useful and high velocity rapid fire automatic cannon and grenade fire power is ideal.

The BMPT has been shown with two 30mm cannon and 4 ATGMs and MGs. The two 30mm cannon because the rate of fire of those weapons is relatively low.

The ideal BMPT armament in my opinion  would be the BMP-3M armament slightly modified in an unmanned turret on a T series tank chassis with the crew moved to the hull.

The HE power of the 100mm gun is excellent and the ability to fire guided rounds through it makes it excellent for point targets or moving targets. The 30mm cannon I would replace with a twin barrel 30mm cannon from the Su-25 with its much higher rate of fire is ideal for a range of other targets, and 7.62mm MGs and 30mm grenade launchers would round out the armament...

Then came this armata model proposal and I have to admit it is even better. The 120mm rifled gun can fire the full range of 120mm mortars and is compatible with both 120mm guided mortar rounds and also the 122mm guided artillery rounds too. Its firing range extends well beyond the 7km of the 100mm rifled gun and it can fire shells and mortar bombs and missiles to about 14km which is comparable to the 122mm howitzer... which is why they are replacing the 2S1s 122mm gun with the 120mm gun/mortar on the 2S34 Hosta.

Added to that the 23mm 6 barrel gatling offers high rate of fire so a 20 round burst leaves in a shotgun blast like cluster rather than a long string from a lower rate of fire weapon, meaning the rounds arrive like a cluster bomb and explode all over the place at one time... much more effective.

The ammo for the 23mm gun is related to the 14.5mm HMG round and  their shell cases are only 115mm long so while using the same HE round as used in the Shilkas ammo (23 x 152mm) the rounds just travel slower... which is not really that important against soft targets on the ground... it is HE power that matters and the 23mm round is very powerful in that regard. the small compact round should be able to be carried in large numbers and with short bursts and 6 barrels it should be able to maintain a high rate of fire without over heating.

Lastly the 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher is a low velocity weapon that will allow targets hiding behind cover to be engaged.

Imagine a situation where an enemy 1.5km away is hiding behind a wall that is rather solid... fire a UAV out the 120mm main gun and fly over the target area at 2km up where the small light UAV can't be seen or heard but it can see enemy troops massing behind several buildings and a wall. Using information from the UAV you can fire a burst of 40mm or 57mm grenades at the target area and watch the effect via the UAV and decide if you need a follow up attack.

The low velocity of the 40mm and 57mm grenades means they can be dropped over cover, while their high HE payload makes them rather effective.

(note we have seen two new grenade launchers... one is called Balkan which uses a caseless 40mm grenade like those used in Russian underbarrel grenade launchers only bigger and with a range of 2.5km, the other is a large heavy 57mm grenade launcher we know little about... )

IMHO add some coaxial MGs and this model is ideal for the role of BMPT...

However, 120mm will be put on the Kurganets to replace the Nona.

It will likely be put on all vehicles (armata, Kurganets, boomerang, typhoon) in a Vena type role... most modern armies have mortar carriers... they are very useful vehicles.

Boomerang weighs far less than the Kurganets for sure.

It is not a matter of weight, but suspension.

Suspension can be fully lowered and locked.

AFAIK the recoil from the 120mm gun/mortar is not that huge... they could fit the lighter vehicles that use it with muzzle brakes to reduce recoil on the chassis.